[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66946-66953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19473]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket 06-189; FCC 06-154]


Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for 
the Delivery of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on 
the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video 
programming. This document solicits information from the public for use 
in preparing this year's competition report that is to be submitted to 
Congress. Comments and data submitted by parties will be used in 
conjunction with publicly available information and filings submitted 
in relevant Commission proceedings to assess the extent of competition 
in the market for the delivery of video programming.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 29, 
2006, and reply comments are due on or before December 29, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB 06-189, by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format

[[Page 66947]]

documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: 
fcc.gov">FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Anne Levine, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
7027, TTY (202) 418-7172, or by e-mail at Anne.Levine@ fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in MB Docket No. 06-189, FCC 06-154, adopted 
October 12, 2006, and released October 20, 2006. The complete text of 
this NOI is available for inspection and copying during regular 
business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 
Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete 
text is also available on the Commission's Internet Site at http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with 
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 
418-7365. The complete text of the NOI may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Company and Printing, Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or by e-mail 
[email protected], or via its website http://www.bcpiweb.com.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

    1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
directs the Commission to report to Congress annually on the status of 
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. This 
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) solicits data and information on for our 
thirteenth annual report (2006 Report). We request information, 
comments, and analyses that will allow us to evaluate the status of 
competition in the video marketplace, changes in the market since the 
2005 Report, prospects for new entrants to that market, factors that 
have facilitated or impeded competition, and the effect these factors 
are having on consumers' access to video programming.
    2. We encourage thorough and substantive submissions from industry 
participants and state and local regulators with the best knowledge of 
the questions and issues raised to ensure the accuracy and usefulness 
of this Report. We will augment reported information with submissions 
in other Commission proceedings. In the past, we have had to rely on 
data from publicly available sources when information has not been 
provided directly by industry participants and will do so again if 
necessary. Nevertheless, we are concerned that such publicly available 
information may not be adequate, especially when various sources 
provide inconsistent data.

Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming

    3. We ask commenters to provide data on video programming 
distributors, including cable systems; direct broadcast satellite (DBS) 
operators; large home satellite dish (C-Band) providers; broadband 
service providers (BSPs); private cable operators (PCO), also called 
satellite master antenna television systems; open video systems (OVS); 
wireless cable systems using frequencies in the broadband radio and 
educational broadband services; local exchange carrier (LEC) systems; 
utility-operated systems; commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) and 
other wireless providers; and over-the-air broadcast television 
stations. We seek information on video programming distributed over the 
Internet and via Internet Protocol (IP) networks and through home video 
sales and rentals. We also seek information that will allow us to 
evaluate horizontal concentration in the video marketplace, vertical 
integration between programming distributors and programming services, 
and other issues relating to the programming available to consumers. We 
request information on technical issues, including equipment and 
emerging services. We seek comments regarding developments in foreign 
markets, as they may contribute to our understanding of domestic 
markets. Where possible and relevant, we request data as of June 30, 
2006.
    4. We seek information and statistical data for each type of 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), including the number 
of homes passed by each wired technology; the number of homes capable 
of receiving service via each wireless technology; the number of 
subscribers and penetration rates for each service (e.g., basic cable 
service tier (BST), cable programming service tier (CPST), premium, or 
their equivalents provided by non-cable MVPDs, a la carte, pay-per-
view, and video-on-demand (VOD) services); available channel capacity 
of the system; the number, type, and identity of video programming 
channels offered, the channel capacity required for such offerings and 
the tiers on which such programming is offered; and the channel 
capacity used for non-video services; prices charged for various 
programming packages and the required equipment; industry and 
individual firm financial information; information on how video 
programming distributors compare in terms of relative size and 
financial resources; data that measure the audience reach of video 
programming networks as well as relative control over the video 
distribution market; and information on video distributor expansion 
into non-video markets such as local telephony, high-speed Internet 
access, wireless telephone service; and other new technologies being 
considered, tested, or deployed.
    5. We are interested in data and information on the number of homes 
that have a choice of MVPD services. How many households can receive 
service from one or more providers (e.g., DBS, wireless cable, PCO) as 
well as an incumbent cable provider? How many consumers have access to 
wireline overbuilders and why is the availability of wireline 
alternatives low relative to wireless alternatives? Where does wireline 
competition exist, and where is entry likely in the near future? Where 
has wireline competition once existed but failed? What effect has 
competition among MVPDs had on consumers (e.g., prices, programming 
choices, quality of service, and the introduction of video and non-
video advanced services)?
    6. To evaluate substitution between MVPD technologies, we seek data 
on relative prices of similar services offered by different types of 
competitors. What effect does the bundling (packaging) of video, voice, 
and high-speed data services have on head-to-head competition? We are 
interested in investigating methods for comparing service packages 
among MVPDs.
    7. Barriers to entry can be regulatory, technological, or financial 
in origin. We seek to understand what these barriers are and how they 
impede competition in the MVPD marketplace. Are there any existing 
Commission regulations or statutory provisions that prevent or 
discourage new entrants from investing in, or deploying broadband or 
other networks for the purpose of offering consumers video services? 
Are there steps that Congress and the Commission may take to reduce 
barriers to competition in the video market, or to increase consumer 
choice? We request comments on the effects that franchising and other 
local and state regulations have on competition in the video 
marketplace.
    8. We request detailed information about programming networks, 
including ownership, the type of programming networks (e.g., national, 
regional, local),

[[Page 66948]]

and the genre of programming networks (e.g., sports, news, children's, 
general entertainment, foreign language). We seek information on 
existing, planned, and terminated or merged programming networks to 
assess the changes over the past year in the amount and type of video 
programming that is available to consumers. We also seek information on 
the nature of trends in the status of programming networks' vertical 
integration with cable operators and with other media interests. We 
note that programming networks are being offered in a variety of forms 
(e.g., multiplexed networks, VOD, shared channels), and we seek comment 
on whether and how to count such programming networks for assessing 
trends in vertical integration. We ask commenters to provide 
information regarding the delivery mode (i.e., satellite or terrestrial 
delivery) of each national and regional network, as we are unaware of 
any comprehensive source of this information.
    9. We request information on children's, locally-originated, and 
local news and community affairs programming distributed to consumers 
by broadcasters and MVPDs. To what extent is programming offered in 
languages other than English, nationally and locally? How is such 
programming packaged (i.e., part of CPST, digital tier, separate tier)? 
We also seek comment regarding public, educational, and governmental 
access channels, including the number of channels used by cable 
operators and other MVPDs for this purpose. We ask for information on 
the programming provided by DBS operators in compliance with their 
public interest obligation. We also seek information on the use of 
leased access channels, and ask whether they provide an opportunity for 
independent programmers to distribute their programming.
    10. We seek comment on programmers' access to carriage by MVPDs. We 
request information on the number of independent networks that launched 
in the past year, including total subscribers; the distributors that 
carry them; the manner of carriage (e.g., expanded basic, digital tier, 
themed digital tier, VOD) and their ongoing efforts to obtain further 
distribution by cable, DBS, and other service providers. Specifically, 
we request comment regarding any difficulties programming networks 
encounter when launching a new service and information on the kinds of 
carriage arrangements that are required to secure MVPD carriage.
    11. We seek information on how video programming distributors 
package and market their programming. To what extent are MVPDs offering 
programming on an a la carte basis or in mixed bundles, themed tiers, 
and subscriber-selected tiers? We seek information on family friendly 
programming, including the cost and content of these packages. Are 
family tiers offered on a stand-alone basis or must consumers subscribe 
to other tiers (e.g., basic service tier, digital tier) to receive 
them? Do subscribers need additional equipment to receive the family 
tier? Do MVPDs offer or plan to offer consumers more choice in channel 
selection, specifically a la carte or themed tiers, rather than 
traditional tiering of programming services?
    12. We seek to assess the extent to which MVPDs have been able to 
acquire or license programming owned by other video distributors. Is 
there specific programming, national or regional/local, that is 
unavailable to either cable or non-cable operators and, if so, why? 
What effect does vertical integration have on competing distributors' 
ability to obtain programming? Are there certain ``must-have'' 
programming services, or genres of services (e.g., regional sports) 
without which competitive video service providers may find themselves 
unable to compete effectively? We also seek information on exclusive 
contracts for all types of programming.
    13. We request comment on the effectiveness of our program access, 
program carriage, and channel occupancy rules. What, if any, video 
programming services that were once delivered to MVPDs by satellite 
have been migrated to terrestrial delivery? Which terrestrially 
delivered networks owned by or affiliated with a program distributor 
are unavailable to some MVPDs under the so-called terrestrial exemption 
to the Commission's program access rules? What exclusive programming 
arrangements exist between programmers and MVPDs? With the advent of 
VOD, what are the competitive implications of video programming 
distributors securing exclusive rights to programming for inclusion in 
their VOD offerings?
    14. We request comment on competition issues specific to video 
programming distribution in rural and smaller markets, including the 
number of MVPDs serving small and rural markets, their subscribership, 
the services and video programming options they offer, and the cost for 
video services. How does competition differ between rural and smaller 
markets and larger, urban areas? We seek information on alternative 
technologies, such as digital subscriber line (DSL) and fiber-based 
Internet Protocol television (IPTV) that small and rural operators are 
adopting. We seek information on any existing differences in program 
carriage agreements between larger urban systems and those in small or 
rural areas, including information on whether buying cooperatives help 
small or rural operators obtain video programming at discounted rates.
    15. We seek specific information regarding MVPD service in Alaska 
and Hawaii. We are interested in whether, and how, cable, DBS, and 
other MVPD services offered in these states differ from that provided 
in other states. How do prices for the various packages of service 
compare to the average national price for such MVPD services? We also 
seek information on any differences in the equipment needed by 
consumers to receive video programming service.
    16. We also seek comment on any factors that are unique to 
competition in multiple dwelling units (MDUs). How common is it for 
consumers to have choices among video programming services within MDUs?
    17. We also invite commenters to provide information on access to 
programming by persons with disabilities. We seek comment on what, if 
any, concerns industry and the public have with meeting the upcoming 
increased captioning requirements for new Spanish language and ``pre-
rule'' English language programming. We seek information on the 
quality, accuracy, placement, technology, and any instances of missing 
or delayed captions, and the amount of digital programming that 
contains closed captions translated from analog closed captions. We 
seek comment on the extent to which digital programming may not be 
captioned and ask why this is the case. We seek information on the 
availability of video description, currently provided by programmers on 
a voluntary basis, and the amount and types of video programming that 
includes video description.

Cable Television Service

    18. For the 2006 Report, we seek updated information on the 
performance of the cable television industry. We request information 
regarding cable operators' continuing investments to upgrade their 
plant and equipment to increase channel capacity, create digital 
services, or offer advanced services. We request information on the 
development of various methods or technologies to increase system 
capacity, such as switched digital video technology.
    19. For individual cable multiple system operators (MSOs), we 
request information such as the number of systems upgraded, the channel 
capacity

[[Page 66949]]

(in terms of both analog and digital channel capacity and the 
compression ratio used for digital transmissions) resulting from 
upgrades, the number of systems, the number of homes passed by, and the 
number of subscribers to digital tier services. To what extent is the 
new capacity used for non-video services? We also seek information on 
cable operators who have launched or plan to launch digital simulcasts 
of their analog channel lineups on one or more of their systems. How 
have the structure and price of service tiers change if a system 
becomes all-digital? What are the implications for customer premises 
equipment?
    20. We seek information on cable system transactions during the 
past year, including the names of the buyer and seller, the date and 
type of transaction (i.e., sale or swap), the name and location of the 
system, homes passed and number of subscribers, and the price. We 
request data regarding the effect of clustering (the practice of 
clustering, whereby operators concentrate their operations in specific 
geographic areas) on competition in the video programming distribution 
market.
    21. We seek comment on whether cable operators are changing the way 
they package programming and the role actual or potential competition 
plays in any such changes. Do cable operators offer or plan to offer 
genre packages or themed tiers (e.g., family, sports, or lifestyle 
tiers) or programming on an a la carte basis? We seek information on 
the programming included on these tiers and their cost, including 
information on whether subscribers must purchase other tiers in order 
to subscribe to these tiers or to purchase channels on an a la carte 
basis.
    22. Section 612(g) of the Communications Act provides that when 
cable systems with 36 or more activated channels are available to 70 
percent of households within the U.S. and are subscribed to by 70 
percent of those households, the Commission may promulgate any 
additional rules necessary to promote diversity of information sources. 
Because data submitted in the record of the 2005 Report raised 
questions as to whether the second prong of the so-called ``70/70 
test'' had been satisfied, we requested further public comment on this 
issue. We again request comment and supporting data that would be 
useful for determining an accurate homes passed statistic, including 
the number of homes passed by systems with 36 or more activated 
channels. Have there been developments in the last year that would 
suggest that the criteria specified under Section 612(g) have been met, 
and if so, what additional rules should the Commission promulgate to 
promote diversity of information sources?
    23. We request data on the percentage of broadcast stations carried 
on cable pursuant to retransmission consent agreements and the 
percentage that are carried pursuant to the must carry provisions. We 
also seek information on the percentage of required set-aside channels 
that cable operators currently are using to carry local broadcast 
signals. To what extent do cable operators pay cash for broadcast 
station carriage rights, carry non-broadcast programming networks, 
provide advertising time, or otherwise compensate broadcasters? We also 
request comment on the effect of retransmission consent compensation on 
cable rates, the ability of small cable operators to secure 
retransmission consent on fair and reasonable terms, and the impact of 
agreements that require the carriage of non-broadcast networks in 
exchange for the right to carry local broadcast stations on MVPDs and 
consumers.
    24. We also request comment on the ``tier buy-through'' option 
mandated by Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act, including the 
percentage of subscribers taking advantage of this option; the 
problems, if any, it creates; the manner in which cable operators make 
this option known to the public; and the extent to which the option is 
applicable (i.e., the extent to which programming is offered or 
purchased on a per-program or per-channel basis).

Direct-to-Home Satellite Services

    25. We seek information and data that explain the factors 
contributing to DBS' growth in the video programming market and that 
can help us assess whether those characteristics will continue to 
position DBS as cable's principal competitor. Is there evidence of 
meaningful price competition between DBS and cable? Do initial DBS 
equipment costs or other factors prevent cable subscribers from 
switching despite escalating monthly cable bills? Does the dynamic 
between the platforms change in markets where DBS offers local 
broadcast signals?
    26. We seek updated information on the geographic characteristics 
of direct to home (DTH) subscribership and, in particular, DBS 
subscribership, and the factors that account for its relative strengths 
or weaknesses in different markets (e.g., areas not served by a cable 
or other wireline provider vs. other areas). To what extent do DBS 
subscribers reside in areas not passed by cable systems? What 
percentage of new DBS subscribers are former cable subscribers or 
former C-Band subscribers?
    27. We seek updated information on the deployment of DBS 
satellites, and plans to expand DBS satellite fleets. Have these 
additional satellites resulted in increased channel capacity or the 
provision of advanced services? What technical methods are DBS 
providers using to increase capacity?
    28. We request updated information on the number of markets where 
local-into-local television service is offered, or will be offered in 
the near future, pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act 
of 1999, including the number and affiliation of the stations carried. 
What percentage of DBS subscribers are opting for local programming 
packages in markets where they are available? What is the cost to 
consumers of local-into-local broadcast channels? How many markets 
receive local high definition (HD) programming? What type of equipment 
is necessary to receive local HD broadcasts and what is the cost of the 
service and the equipment?
    29. On December 8, 2004, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) was enacted, which added new 
provisions to the Communications and Copyright Acts pertaining to the 
retransmission by DBS of distant broadcast signals. Throughout 2005, 
the Commission implemented the provisions of the SHVERA. We request 
comment on the impact, if any, these provisions have had on the MVPD 
marketplace. With respect to the new authorization to market broadcast 
station signals deemed ``significantly viewed,'' to what extent are 
such signals being made available to subscribers?
    30. We request data on prices for DBS programming packages and 
equipment, and the subscribership of different packages of programming. 
Do DBS operators offer any programming on an a la carte basis and, if 
so, what are the prices and subscription requirements associated with 
such offerings? What additional charges, if any, are required to obtain 
foreign language or foreign originated programming? We also request 
information about programming packages available to C-Band subscribers, 
including the types of packages offered, their prices, and the amount 
of programming that is offered on an a la carte basis and that is free 
and unscrambled.

Local Exchange Carriers

    31. We previously reported that LEC entry into the MVPD industry 
has been

[[Page 66950]]

limited, but that developments demonstrated renewed LEC interest in 
providing video programming services. We seek information generally 
regarding LECs that provide video programming services. Are there any 
regulatory or statutory impediments to LEC entry in the video service 
market? Do LECs target specific areas or markets for deployment and 
what are the determinants of these decisions? How do LEC video services 
compare to those available from incumbent cable or satellite operators? 
Is there evidence of price competition between LECs, cable, and 
satellite operators?
    32. The major incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) have 
marketing agreements with DBS providers under which they sell the DBS 
operator's video services along with their telephony and DSL-based high 
speed Internet access service. What effect have these agreements had on 
LEC entry into the video industry? We also request comment on smaller 
ILECs are reportedly constructing their own all-fiber or mostly fiber 
networks to deliver video and advanced services to their existing voice 
and data customers. Are there any unique barriers to entry into smaller 
and rural video markets?

Broadband Service Providers and Open Video System Operators

    33. We request information regarding the provision of video, voice, 
and data services by broadband service providers (BSPs), including 
municipal entities, and independent and competitive local exchange 
carriers (CLEC) overbuilders (to the extent they operate 
technologically advanced networks capable of providing video and non-
video services). Are video programming services offered in combination 
with telephone and high-speed Internet access services and, if so, how 
are rates affected by the packaging of multiple services? How many, or 
what percentage of, BSP subscribers purchase video service alone, video 
and telephony, video and high-speed Internet access services, or all 
three services? We seek comment on the effect that BSPs have on video 
competition, and the characteristics that facilitate BSP 
competitiveness (e.g., number of subscribers, homes passed, 
geographical reach, demographics, and business models). Are there still 
significant barriers to entry? What are the technical and economic 
factors that determine whether overbuild systems are successful?

Open Video System Operators

    34. To what extent are new wireline entrants operating under the 
open video system (OVS) classification, and what factors (e.g., state 
and local franchising requirements) cause new entrants to choose the 
OVS classification? How many subscribers receive video services from 
OVS operators, and how many subscribers purchase the non-video services 
offered? We seek information on why new entrants that have chosen the 
OVS classification and on MVPD entrants that initially chose OVS 
classification, but have since converted to another framework (e.g., 
Title VI cable service). Are video and non-video services offered in 
combination with one another, and, if so, how are rates affected by the 
packaging of multiple services? What effect do OVS operators have on 
video competition?

Electric and Gas Utilities

    35. We seek information regarding utility companies that provide 
video services, including broadband over powerline technology. To what 
extent are video programming services being bundled with telephone, 
high-speed Internet access, or other utility services and how do these 
offerings compare with those of incumbent cable operators?

Broadcast Television Service

    36. We seek data and comment on the role of broadcast television in 
the market for the delivery of video programming. We seek data on 
broadcast network and station audience shares, especially relative to 
those of non-broadcast programming services. We also request data on 
broadcast advertising revenue. To what extent has cable gained local, 
regional, or national advertising market share from broadcast 
television? What forms of compensation are broadcasters receiving for 
retransmission consent? In terms of additional sources of revenue, to 
what extent are cable and DBS operators paying cash compensation for 
retransmission of broadcast stations? If the compensation is not cash 
based, how is it accounted for?
    37. We request data on the number or percentage of households 
relying solely on over-the-air broadcast television for programming. We 
also seek information on the number of MVPD households, by type of MVPD 
service, that rely on over-the-air reception for local broadcast 
service on one or more of their television sets not connected to an 
MVPD. We ask commenters to provide demographic information that might 
assist us in classifying such households (e.g., urban vs. rural, 
income, education levels, age).
    38. We seek comment on a number of issues concerning the transition 
to digital television (DTV) service. We request information on the 
number of households that are able to receive DTV/HDTV programming 
either over the air or from an MVPD. We seek current data and 
projections for the number of households that rely on over-the-air 
reception of broadcast television that have DTV sets, including the 
number that have built-in or separate DTV tuner capability. What 
reception difficulties, if any, do viewers that are within the service 
areas of DTV stations experience, and have there been any advances to 
address reception performance? Are there unique reception issues that 
differentiate DTV service from analog service in terms of either better 
or worse over-the-air reception?
    39. We request information regarding the MVPD carriage of DTV 
programming, in either standard definition (SD) or high definition (HD) 
formats, and plans to increase the amount of DTV programming carried. 
How many MVPD subscribers are served by systems that carry DTV 
programming, and how many households are subscribing to such services 
when offered as separate packages? We also request comment on carriage 
agreements between MVPDs and broadcasters. Specifically, how many 
noncommercial educational broadcast stations are being carried, and 
under what terms?
    40. We seek information on how MVPDs package and price broadcast 
and non-broadcast DTV programming. What impact will the digital 
transition have on competition if cable has the capacity to provide 
broadcast HD programming, but DBS operators do not?
    41. We request information on the amount and type of DTV 
programming offered by broadcasters. To what extent are they using 
their DTV spectrum for SDTV, HDTV, or multicasting? To what extent are 
stations locally producing DTV or HDTV programming? To what extent are 
stations offered network HDTV programming that they are either not 
equipped to pass through, or for other reasons do not pass through? How 
are noncommercial educational broadcasters, including PBS affiliates, 
using the DTV spectrum? Are there differences in the ways that 
commercial and noncommercial broadcasters are using their DTV spectrum?
    42. Have the Commission's programs to educate consumers about the 
transition to digital television resulted in greater consumer 
familiarity with DTV in general and HDTV specifically? We seek data 
regarding consumers' awareness of the DTV transition, including 
consumer survey results. We

[[Page 66951]]

seek information on the consumer education efforts of government, 
retailers, broadcasters, video programmers and producers, and others. 
How successful are these consumer education efforts?
    43. We seek information on the types of services and content that 
broadcasters are transmitting using multicasting. We seek information 
on whether multicasting is limited to large markets, or if stations in 
small- and medium-sized markets are multicasting. How much multicast 
programming is locally produced or locally focused? To what extent is 
the provision of multicast service dependent upon its carriage by cable 
and other MVPD operators? In how many markets are cable operators and 
other MVPDs carrying broadcasters' multicast programming, and which 
markets are they?
    44. DTV also allows broadcasters to use part of their digital 
bandwidth for subscription multichannel video programming services and 
datacasting. How many TV households subscribe to these services, what 
markets have access to these services, and what is their expected 
growth over the next several years? We further request information on 
how broadcasters are using datacasting to deliver services and content 
to consumers.
    45. We seek updated information on the adoption of the equipment 
needed to receive digital programming, either over the air or from an 
MVPD, such as the total number of DTV displays, including HD-ready and 
enhanced definition (ED)-ready monitors, and set-top, over-the-air 
tuners, that have been shipped to retailers or sold to consumers. How 
many DBS receivers contain over-the-air DTV reception capabilities? How 
many cable set-top boxes include this capability? We also seek 
information on the development and availability of digital-to-analog 
converters that will allow digital TV broadcasts to be viewed on analog 
TV sets. We seek an update on the development of a high-quality, low-
cost digital-to-analog converter box for terrestrial DTV reception.

Wireless Cable Systems

    46. Wireless cable operators offer limited competition to incumbent 
cable operators. Many licensees of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) 
and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) used by wireless cable 
operators to provide video service have chosen to focus on the delivery 
of non-video broadband services, such as high-speed Internet service. 
Have factors such as concerns regarding access to programming, 
bandwidth considerations, local regulatory considerations, and bundled 
service offerings, led wireless cable operators to move away from video 
service?

Private Cable Operators

    47. We request information on the types of services offered by 
private cable operators (PCOs), also known as satellite master antenna 
television (SMATV) operators. We seek information on the identification 
of PCO companies, the geographic areas they serve, the programming 
packages offered, and the prices of such packages compared to those of 
incumbent cable operators. We seek comment on whether PCOs are using 
CARS licenses to provide additional competition to incumbent cable 
operators.

Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers

    48. We request information on the availability and deployment of 
mobile television services, including information on programming 
agreements between video programming networks and other content 
providers and cell phone companies. How many mobile telephone users 
have access to and subscribe to video programming services? What 
equipment is required to receive these services, and what is the cost 
of equipment and service? In which markets are these services 
available? We are interested in any studies or surveys that explore the 
use of mobile video services as a complement to, or a substitute for, 
traditional video services. Do current trends suggest that we should 
consider mobile telephone providers that offer video programming to be 
MVPDs?
    49. We also seek information on video distribution from other 
wireless devices, including iPODs and personal digital assistants 
(PDAs), used to receive such programming. We seek information on the 
manner in which video content is delivered to these devices (e.g., 
broadcast vs. Internet downloading). We seek information on how 
programmers are re-purposing traditional video programming for viewing 
on these devices, and if programmers are creating content specifically 
for these new devices.

Internet Video

    50. We seek updated information on the types of video services 
offered over the Internet in both real time and downloadable format. We 
request comment on its quality relative to traditional video program 
distribution. We seek projections of whether Internet video will become 
a viable competitor in the market for the delivery of video programming 
and, if so, when such competition will emerge. We also seek comment on 
companies that provide content distribution via the Internet for 
independent content producers.

Home Video Sales and Rentals

    51. We seek information regarding the home video sales and rental 
market, including data on the number or percentage of households with 
videocassette recorders (VHS) and digital versatile disc (DVD) players. 
We request information on the amount of programming available in DVD 
and VHS formats, for sale and rental, the cost of rentals, and how this 
compares with the cost of pay-per-view, video-on-demand, or near video-
on-demand programming offered by MVPDs. We also seek information on 
Internet-based video sales and rental services and the effect, if any, 
they have on video distributors' service offerings, such as VOD and 
pay-per-view.

Advanced Services

    52. We seek information on the advanced services offered by all 
MVPDs (e.g., VOD, digital video recorders (DVRs), high-speed Internet 
access, telephony, and HDTV). We request subscribership statistics; 
cost data; and required equipment for each type of service offered. We 
request information on how MVPDs bundle these services and how this 
affects competition.
    53. For example, we seek information on the programming that is 
available through video-on-demand. Is there programming that is 
produced especially for VOD? How much VOD content is local? What amount 
of VOD content is exclusive to any one video distributor?
    54. We seek information on DVR services provided by MVPDs. What 
percentage of subscribers has access to operator-supplied DVRs, and how 
many subscribe to the service? How many use a DVR not supplied by an 
MVPD? We seek information on the characteristics of the DVRs offered 
(e.g., single or dual tuner, storage capacity). Do DBS providers still 
use DVRs to approximate VOD service? What percentage of the DVR set-top 
boxes are leased as opposed to purchased? Do MVPDs plan to offer a 
network-based or centralized DVR-like service?
    55. In addition, we seek information on the percentage of MVPD 
Internet access service subscribers that also are video subscribers. 
How is the service priced, and do video subscribers receive discounts? 
What is the status of DBS high-speed Internet access (e.g., telephone 
return path, two-way satellite delivered). Are MVPDs giving

[[Page 66952]]

subscribers a choice of Internet service providers? Has any MVPD 
blocked access to certain kinds of Internet content or applications?
    56. Finally, we seek information on the latest developments 
regarding Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony. Is it marketed 
as part of a bundle of services? Are discounts offered to video 
subscribers? To what extent are MVPDs phasing out switched circuit 
telephony?

Technical Issues

    57. Technological developments have important consequences for the 
state of video competition. We seek comment and data on a range of 
developments related to consumer equipment, navigation devices, the 
Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP), PacketCable, CableCARDs, 
advanced compression techniques, technical standards, and home 
networking.
    58. We seek comment on the availability and compatibility of 
customer premises equipment used to provide video and non-video 
services. How many households currently have analog television sets 
that are connected to a set-top box for the provision of various MVPD 
services. How many of these set-top boxes only provide analog services 
and how many provide different types of digital service, (i.e., decode 
and display HD signals). How many of these MVPD set-top boxes also 
contain cable modems, IP telephony interfaces, DVR capabilities, or 
home networking capabilities, and how are these services priced? How 
many set-top boxes are capable of providing video programming on an a 
la carte basis and is any MVPD offering this service?
    59. We also seek information on the retail availability of 
navigation devices to consumers. How many such devices have been sold? 
What are the obstacles to equipment manufacturers and others for 
obtaining approval to attach devices to MVPD systems? How does 
equipment design, function, and/or availability affect consumer choice 
and competition between firms in the video programming market? We 
request information on the development and deployment of electronic 
programming guides (EPGs), including the number and type of EPGs that 
video programming distributors offer or plan to offer, and the 
technologies used to distribute EPGs. We ask commenters to provide 
information on partnerships between video providers and developers of 
EPGs, the extent MVPD-affiliated EPGs are available to competitors, and 
whether subscribers have access to EPGs that are unaffiliated with 
their video provider? How many products are currently available with 
plug-and-play functionality, or are soon to be available?
    60. We seek updated information on developments CableLabs' OCAP 
middleware solution. Which manufacturers are incorporating OCAP into 
their products? How many OCAP compliant products have been deployed, 
and how many are in use today? What types of applications exist for 
OCAP? Do smaller cable systems have plans to deploy these devices and, 
if so, how will they do it? We seek information on the results of OCAP 
device trials by MSOs in select markets, and whether they are expected 
to lead to commercial implementations and, if so, when. We request 
information on industry developments to facilitate bi-directional 
services and interactive television (ITV) applications and services. We 
also request updated information on the state of the agreement between 
the Consumer Electronics Association and the National Cable & 
Telecommunications Association to incorporate support for OCAP in 
interactive Digital Cable Ready (iDCR) devices, and whether any 
technical issues remain.
    61. We solicit updated information on PacketCable, the 
specification standard for the delivery of advanced real-time 
multimedia services over two-way plant. We also seek updated 
information CableCARDs, including the number operators have placed in 
service: the manner in which subscribers must obtain a CableCARD: 
whether operators require professional installation of the card: and 
any monthly subscription charges or one-time fees associated with 
installing or authorizing the CableCARD. Have MVPDs or consumers 
encountered problems with CableCARDs and how have they been resolved? 
We seek information on the status of operators to develop multi-stream 
and two-way CableCARDs, and the impact this development will likely 
have on the competitive marketplace for digital cable-ready receivers, 
including DVRs.
    62. We request updated information on the development and 
deployment of any downloadable conditional access systems. We seek 
comment on what content protection technologies are now available, how 
they work, and what legal or marketplace impediments have affected the 
roll-out of such tools. We seek comment on what security measures are 
in use and the effect of the choice of such security measures on 
competition. We also invite comment on how the Commission can encourage 
the development of digital rights management technology that will 
promote consumer uses of, and access to, high value digital content.
    63. We request updates on MVPDs' implementation of advanced video 
compression technologies (codecs). We are particularly interested in 
examples of how the implementation of advanced codecs has increased 
efficiency or created specific benefits flowing to subscribers. In 
addition, we seek information on industry developments with respect to 
the creation of specifications and standards to support the wider 
introduction of home networks by MVPDs.
    64. We seek information on the effect that technical rules and 
standards have on the market for video programming services. Are there 
specific actions that the Commission may take to foster greater 
competition among video service providers? Do current technical rules 
and standards (such as the ``plug-and-play'' standards), provide a 
level playing field among competitors in the video delivery 
marketplace?

Foreign Markets

    65. We seek information or case studies that address the status of 
competition in foreign markets for the delivery of video programming 
because developments in other countries can lend insight into the 
nature of competition in the United States. Specifically, we seek 
information regarding the differences between the U.S. market and 
foreign markets, including differences in pricing; packaging (e.g., a 
la carte offerings); deployment of VoIP; the DTV transition; and 
competition among MVPDs or over-the-air service. We seek input from 
distributors operating both in the United States and abroad. How do 
different regulatory approaches affect their business models?

Procedural Matters

    66. Authority. This NOI is issued pursuant to authority contained 
in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g).
    67. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure 
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.1204(b)(1).
    68. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing

[[Page 66953]]

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to fcc.gov">ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19473 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P